Impact of Crusades

Originally posted by PhilHellene Nicephorus, Breviarium When Heaclius was in the East, he appointed Johannes Varkenos as his general and sent him against Egyptian Saracens, and he fell in the battle wih them. And Marinus, chief of Thracian army, was defeated in the battle with them, lost a lot of soldiers and hardly escaped. Then Heraclius appointed in his place Marianus as his general, who had a roman title cubicularius. He sent him in Egypt and ordered him to get into touch with Alexandrian patriarch Cyrus and discuss with him the relationship wih Saracens. Cyrus persuaded basileus to make peace with Omar, chief of Saracens, on condition of paying tribute, and he planned to get it by imposing duties on goods without decreasing what was owed to basileus. It was advised to promise Omar one of basileus` daughters to impel Omar to baptize and to become a Christian. Omar and his army obeyed Cyrus, because they loved him. But Heraclius didn`t like it all. When Marianus found out it, he rejected the plans of Cyrus and went into battle with Saracens and he died and lost a lot of soldiers.

Thanks for the quote.

Let me see, after the successfull invasions of Egypt, Palestine, and the peaceful entrance into Jerusalem; somehow Omar was tempted by Cyrus into baptism?

In 629-30 Heraclius captured Jerusalem. He turned it into a Christian city and barred the Jews entry. In 638 Patriarch Sophronius assisted in the unarmed capture of the city. Because of this, Caliph Omar El-Khatab issued a firman, which granted certain rights to the Christians of the Holy Land and to the Patriarchate. The Patriarch of Jerusalem was recognized as the highest authority on all affairs relating to the holy places, Christian communities, monasteries, and convents. The Patriarchate became the mediator between the Muslim authorities and the Christians.

I am not sure of when this date in history occured regarding the temptation of Omar by Cyrus in becoming baptized. Interesting, but still obscure. A foreign policy by Cyrus gone awry. Too bad we don't have many more sources on this event.

Though there have been cases of pressured conversions by Islamic leaders in history, I have been focusing on the corrupted accusations towards the early pioneers of Islam and the biased accounts of Theophanes.



Here is more info on Cyrus and Omar:
    
    
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst372/readings/treadgold1.html

The victorious Arabs retook Damascus, advanced through Syria, and in 637 conquered its northern part, including Antioch and Beroea. At the same time they won a devastating victory over the Persians in Mesopotamia and captured Ctesiphon. Soon the new caliph 'Umar arrived to oversee the annexation of Syria to his domains. After the patriarch Sophronius sadly surrendered Jerusalem early in 638, the Arabs held all of Syria except for some beleaguered coastal cities. Egypt was isolated, and Byzantine Mesopotamia almost defenseless. The governor of Osrhoene John, who was probably its duke, agreed to pay the Arabs one hundred thousand nomismata a year from local revenues not to cross the Euphratse. But after John had made the first payment, the emperor dismissed and exiled him, evidently for exceeding his authority. The main restraint on the Arabs was the plague, which many of them caught from the Syrians and Egyptians.

Heraclius finally returned to his capital in 638, over a bridge of boats designed to allay his hydrophobia. In a last attempt to salvage his theological compromise, he issued a statement of faith prepared by the patriarch Sergius, the Ecthesis ("Exposition"). The Ecthesis affirmed the Council of Chalcedon and the two natures of Crhist, forbade further discussion of Christ's energies - which few wanted to discuss anyway - and declared, using language permitted by Pope Honorius, that Christ had one will. This doctrine of one will, or Monotheletism, differed from Monoenergism only in being slightly less muddled. Sergius died just after its promulgation, but the new patriarch Pyrrhus held a council that approved the Ecthesis.

In 639, after receiving no tribute from Byzantine Mesopotamia, the Arabs began their conquest of the country. They finished the task with little delay, accepting the surrender of Edessa and storming Dara. Late the same year, other Arabs invaded Egypt. The leader of this expedition, who seems already to have extorted tribute from the Egyptians, was 'Amr ibn al-'As, one of the conquerors of Syria. 'Amr is said to have led no more than four thousand men; once Heraclius's general John had arrived, Egypt was surely defended by more soldiers than this, even without counting the bedraggled garrison troops. But the country was still suffering from the plague, impoverished and demoralized. Since the Egyptian prefect and patriarch Cyrus had intensified his persecution of the Monophysites to force them to accept Monotheletism, a number of Egyptians were ready to cooperate with the invaders. Yet if properly defended the Nile presented the Arabs with a major obstacle.

'Amr easily took the coastal towns on his way, but met firm resistance near the Nile from John and the local dukes. After a furious battle in which John died, 'Amr had to appeal to the caliph 'Umar for reinforcements. John's successor was Theodore, perhaps the same general the Arabs had defeated near Emesa, and in any case a mediocre strategist. Before 'Amr's reinforcements arrived, Theodore and the patriarch Cyrus gathered their forces at the fortified town of Babylon on the Nile, near modern Cairo, but remained on the defensive. By the summer of 640, 'Amr's army had grown to about fifteen thousand men. With these 'Amr attacked the Byzantines north of Babylon, routed them, and besieged Cyrus in the city itself.

To reinforce Egypt, Heraclius sent soldiers from the displaced Army of Thrace under its commander Marianus. But the Arabs promptly defeated Marianus and destroyed much of his army. In these dire straits, the besieged patriarch Cyrus reached a tentative agreement to pay 'Amr tribute of two hundred thousand nomismata a year in return for a truce. Cyrus traveled to Constantinople to submit these terms to the emperor, but Heraclius angrily repudiated them and exiled Cyrus. The Arabs went on besieging Babylon, and defeated and killed Marianus in a second battle. As panicked Byzantine soldiers decamped from the Egyptian countryside and poured into Alexandria, the Arabs sealed their conquest of Palestine by taking Caesarea.


    

Edited by Seko - 24-Aug-2006 at 10:10

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl The problem with this forum is that it is dominated by the Islamophiles, Islamists and socialists. To such an extent, that history from a Christian perspective is reflexively, constantly attacked by the aforementioned groups.

Originally posted by R_AK47   Exactly, the crusades slowed the muslim advance and therefore saved Europe from islamic conquest.  Quetzalcoatl is correct.  I wonder if the crusade bashers on this forum who live in Europe would like to live in a Europe dominated by islam which is what might have happened if not for the crusades.  I doubt that thier liberal opinions would be tolerated in an islam dominated europe.

Originally posted by R_AK47   I assume you are referring to the Fourth Crusade/plunder of Constantinople when you speak of the negative impact.  The 4th Crusade was an unfortunate event.  However, I don't think that the cruaders that took part in the 4th Crusade should be the only ones blamed for the event.

Damned, lock this topic or delete it for this has gone too far.

Edited by Philhellene - 24-Aug-2006 at 17:01

Originally posted by R_AK47 I assume you are referring to the Fourth Crusade/plunder of Constantinople when you speak of the negative impact.  The 4th Crusade was an unfortunate event.  However, I don't think that the cruaders that took part in the 4th Crusade should be the only ones blamed for the event.  The 4th Crusades original target was Jerusalem, not Constantinople.  The Crusade was redirected to Constantinople after Byzantine Prince Alexius Angeles requested their help in returning his father, Isaac II Angeles.  The crusaders were promised money, more troops, and unification of the churchs in exchange for helping the Alexius' cause.  They were not originally planning on plundering Constantinople, but were actually invited by a Byzantine Prince.  Unfortunately for everyone involved things didn't go as planned we and all know the unfortunate result of that.  Anyways, you can't say the Crusades in general were negative and bad only because of the events that took place during the 4th.

Hold on a minute. You are attempting to shift the blame for the 4th Crusade on to the Byzantines themselves here, which I find myself not buying. The Byzantines bear no moral culpability for the rape of their great capital in 1204. The Crusaders had NO right to attack Constantinople. Alexius Angelas (IV) was a deposed prince, who did not understand the state of Byzantine finances and could expect little serious political backing in Constantinople. He was a Byzantine ex-royal whose word carried no weight.

Further more, the Papacy explicitly prohibited the attack of Adriatic Catholic settlements and Constantinople, to the extent that Innocent III issued a Papal Bull against it. The Crusaders attacked Constantinople in defiance of their pontiff, with no more legitimacy backing them than a long disenfranchised ex-royal.  For them to  optimistically put their faith in the promises of a powerless individual who was not an effective representative of Byzantine government only increases their culpability, they were willing to attack the city on the flimsiest of pretexts in expectation of the most hollow of promises. Shifting the blame for the Fourth Crusade to the Byzantines just won't carry the day on this one.


Edited by Constantine XI - 24-Aug-2006 at 20:14

Does a change in the present political climate negate or prove what has happened in history?  Can present day motives be attributed to people in the past? 

Originally posted by Constantine XI Hold on a minute. You are attempting to shift the blame for the 4th Crusade on to the Byzantines themselves here, which I find myself not buying. The Byzantines bear no moral culpability for the rape of their great capital in 1204. The Crusaders had NO right to attack Constantinople. Alexius Angelas (IV) was a deposed prince, who did not understand the state of Byzantine finances and could expect little serious political backing in Constantinople. He was a Byzantine ex-royal whose word carried no weight. Further more, the Papacy explicitly prohibited the attack of Adriatic Catholic settlements and Constantinople, to the extent that Innocent III issued a Papal Bull against it. The Crusaders attacked Constantinople in defiance of their pontiff, with no more legitimacy backing them than a long disenfranchised ex-royal.  For them to  optimistically put their faith in the promises of a powerless individual who was not an effective representative of Byzantine government only increases their culpability, they were willing to attack the city on the flimsiest of pretexts in expectation of the most hollow of promises. Shifting the blame for the Fourth Crusade to the Byzantines just won't carry the day on this one.

Edited by R_AK47 - 24-Aug-2006 at 23:40

With every generation of historians, the cold facts and primary sources remain, it is the interpretations of those which differ.

Going back to the original question, the crusades had an important impact on both Europe and the Middle East, both economically and culturally.

Economically:

1. Greatly increased trade between Europe and Asia, first coming through Crusader ports like Acre and Tyre.

2. Development of maritime empires like Venice, Genoa and Aragon

3. Increased centralization of governments throughout Europe, namely because of taxation collection and spending for crusading expeditions.

4. The increased importance and power of the Papacy

5. Improved land management as large amounts of property fell under the control of military orders like the Hospitallers and Templars

Cultural

1. Increased cultural ties between European nations, since they were often working together in the crusades

2. Gradual adoption of new military ethics, often influenced by Islamic concepts of Jihad, for crusading

3. The Catholic West became more aware of other views of Christianity, including Nestorian and Greek Orthodox, and increased dialogue between these communities.

4. Gradually increasing discrimination and hostility towards Jewish and Muslim minorities living in Europe

5. Crusading became an important subject in literature and courtly culture

6. Adoption of Middle Eastern military tactics, in particular fortifications

How did the Crusades effect the Middle East

1. The ideas of jihad, or holy war, were reinvigorated in the ME.

2. Outside groups gained prominence in the military and ruling elite in places like Egypt and Syria. Groups like the Turks, Kurds (Ayyubids) and later the Mamluks took control of the government.

3. Gradually increasing discrimination and hostility towards minority Christian and Jewish populations

It should be noted that other factors had a bigger impact on the Middle East apart from the Crusades, in particular the Mongol invasion of Iran, Iraq and Syria in the 1250s

I can expand on any of these points if you like (I actually wrote a bigger piece, but then I accidentally deleted it)


Some articles that might be valuable to read for this thread can be found on the De Re Militari website:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/crusades.htm

Chevedden, Paul, The Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study in Cultural Diffusion - from Dumbarton Oaks Papers v.54 (2000)

Laiou, Angeliki E., Byzantine Trade with Christians and Muslims and the Crusades - from The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World (2001)

Schein, Sylvia, From 'Milites Christi' to 'Mali Christiani': The Italian Communes in Western Historical Literature - I Comuni Italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme (1986)

Schein, Sylvia, Between East and West: the Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099-1291 - from East and West in the crusader states : context, contacts, confrontations v.1 (1996)